Arya Thinking

"It's a secret to everybody." Will probably follow back. Have a nice day!

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@chico_ray @MarioNawfal IRGC are hardcore fanatics and will likely coup their govt if their govt admits defeat.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@chico_ray @MarioNawfal Iranians can never admit losing to Western powers (beyond a “temporary strategic retreat”) because part of their ideology has been brainwashing themselves that they’re superior and on the side of God, thus they cannot lose. Their ideology falls apart if they admit defeat.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@grateconman @CensoredBrand @AkademiksTV Yeah, I was speaking in general. Idk many of the details of what has happened with either of these people, just a very broad overview.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

I’m not taking a side in all this, but as an answer to how it may help a case- a criminal history with a pattern of behavior matching a claim would add credibility, especially if the person doesn’t know that history. For example, if person ‘A’ claims person ‘B’, who they didn’t know, both threatened violence and then began hitting person ‘A’- and it turns out person ‘B’ has an extensive history of doing exactly that, it adds some credibility to that claim.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@Clyde_Pain @StassenHei95302 @Jason2bartlett @WhiteHouse Not defending. I’m just saying I’m unaware of any prosecutions for fraud, which is what people are essentially claiming is obvious, which, if so, should have been an open and shut case of criminal fraud. 🤷‍♂️

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

I had actually come across replies asking him about that and briefly looked into it; however, if he took the donations and used them to buy the truck, I think he’d have been jailed for fraud, since I’m sure the fundraiser has likely been reported by many. As far as I know, the platform can freeze fund transfers if they suspect the funds won’t be used in good faith or have proof of misuse. If it’s as blatant as ppl claim, the platform also involves law enforcement to prosecute for fraud. Several things can be true at the same time though- he could have raised the money in good faith, using some amount of the funds in the process- I don’t think it met its fundraising goal though, but idk. Anyone, not just the participant donors, can report a fundraiser to be investigated as suspected fraud or otherwise inappropriate. He also could have been investigated and both good faith fundraising along with already completely separately planning to and already separately being able to afford the truck outright regardless could have all been proven. I doubt you’ll care to hear this part, but the coincidence and timing just simply aren’t proof of guilt, although I do agree it does “look” bad.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

I’ve only seen a few of this guy’s posts, but the replies always seem to be multiple people trying to goad him to prove every little detail. He says he works on a farm and ppl are like post the deed or you didn’t buy it. Like, who would do that- telling everyone your address, and who cares whether he owns it or just works on it anyway? Also, if I were him, I wouldn’t be broadcasting the exact dates that I wouldn’t be home. That’d just be a security concern.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Legendary.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

.@Asmongold is generational. I’m not saying he’s like Rush or like Buckley, but he’s absolutely on their level.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Imma let you finish, but Hakuho would slap ya, bro!

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Little do sumo wrestlers know that some guy in Alabama is giving them standing ovations and cheering their names 😂

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Go, go Wakatakakage!

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Thanks. Yeah, I agree- text can come across in different ways to different people. I hadn't taken it as an insult/personally; likewise, none of my comments were intended to be taken as such.

I'm openminded on the proposition that 2A was mainly about about overthrowing tyranny- I've mostly considered the overthrowing tyranny part as a bonus side feature component- as in, "mainly 'civil defense,' but also...," rather than it being the inverse or solely about the prevention of the gov't turning tyrannical. Either way, my opinion there is (for lack of a better description at the moment) "not something I'm married to."

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@ArminNavabi If the regime proceeds to arm loyalists, the clear exploit is that much of the anti-regime should simply pretend to be loyalists- they'll receive the same weapons.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@GrandpaBuckyVT @RussianMonk37 @Lunethyst_VT @DocStrangelove2 * I will watch your videos sometime...

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

https://t.co/gHtbf630bL

Oh, hey. I watch your videos sometime...

So, I already knew all that. I'm also honestly not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but if I had to put money on the line, I'd bet I've done more research than you; I'm also a 2A advocate and think it should be less restrictive- I was just roughly describing how it works.

The puckle gun was very rare and not used by the US military (or any military)- it was considered a defensive weapon (intended to prevent ship boarding; as in, anti-pirates), not an offensive/military weapon. It was similarly accepted as "civil defense" against pirates for commercial/civilian ships to have cannons at that time, which I suppose people have described as "war ships."

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

Some years ago, I downloaded state firearm data, along with other various stats available (violent crime stats, self-deletes, population demographics, etc.) & generated some charts. This was all rather informal & ad hoc, but I dug pretty deep; the only notable correlations I found may seem rather obvious, except for one...

✅1. Stricter gun laws = fewer ppl owning guns.

✅2. Higher gun ownership = more self-deletion.

🚫3. Stricter gun laws did not correlate with homicide rate; similarly, gun ownership rate did not correlate with homicide rate.

❓4. Oddly, "grape" was loosely correlated with self-deletion. That could be coincidental...? Maybe there's an explanation, but I didn't think too deeply into it or research it further.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

I've had relationships where I've gone all out and in that department, and some where I just didn't care and didn't even try- my data shows mixed results...

I'm in an analyzing mood, so if I were to analyze all this, he's not wrong on the surface, but it also kind of depends on other factors- not sure it can be [roughly] generalized.

First, it'd depend on how much effort it take you to get off a specific woman, since that varies by woman who she's with. It also depends on if the guy gets more enjoyment from getting off a woman/women (e.g. likes getting an ego boost from compliments and such), compared to the requisite effort.

Lastly, I think the ROI can also depend on how much a woman genuinely likes you, how much/often she wants you to get her off, and whether or not that has an impact more broadly on how you're treated- if she's likes you a lot and/or doesn't care much for getting off (or gets a lot of satisfaction from getting you off), she probably won't care if you're being selfish with effort.

TL;DR: effort & perceived value metrics vary (plus capability/efficiency), so resulting ROIs will vary, along with being subjective.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@RussianMonk37 @Lunethyst_VT @DocStrangelove2 The legal core is what was meant by "arms" when the amendment was written. At that time, it meant commonly used civil defense weapons.

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@RussianMonk37 @Lunethyst_VT @DocStrangelove2 The 2nd amendment was about civil defense. It limits the general public to civilian weapons commonly used for that purpose, as in, if a weapon is commonly accepted as such. That's why, broadly speaking, civilians can't own automatic weapons or military ordinances (missiles, etc).

[Arya Thinking @ThinkWithMe]

@RussianMonk37 @Lunethyst_VT @DocStrangelove2 It's also why opponents try to refer to some civilian rifles as "weapons of war"- it's to try to sway the views of the general public, such that a super-majority no longer consider it "civilian." So then, it can be banned, and the ban would pass a constitutionality test.